Wednesday, January 30th, 2008
Many people have noted that the writers of the New Testament and the early church never condemned the institution of slavery. Such a view reflects the particular perspective that we can have about a degrading and brutalizing convention practiced in other societies at former times, comfortably distanced as we are by centuries from the most notorious period of slavery (it is still practiced, however). That view also misses some critical aspects of Jesus’s teaching that in fact did challenge social conventions of the times, as indeed they do now. It is possible to overlook the critical entailments of Jesus’s teaching and example that profoundly broke with conventions of the times and indeed would eventually reshape the ideas and understandings of some Christians later.

       Many of his teachings conflicted with the thought and practice of his times: Promises such as “blessed are the peacemakers,” and imperatives like “love your neighbor as yourself” and “wash one another’s feet,” and advice such as “whoever would be greatest must be the servant of all.”  Such teachings clashed with conventional practice and would come to shape the behavior of those who sought to follow Jesus and reflect his personality in the world.

Likewise certain teachings about how followers of Jesus should treat each other clashed with common practices of the times; they would affect the way folks related to each other within the church, contradicting conventions well established in the wider society. Teaching within the Christian community on how to relate to slaves would have a profound effect on the status of slaves within the church. And when those who opposed the mercantile slavery system began to raise their voices, they found plenty of grounds for their critique in the foundational Christian texts, for from the beginning the implications of Christian teaching had contradicted the practices of slavery at the time. We get a glimpse into that contradiction in the two letters that Paul sent to Philemon’s house in about 55 A.D. (or 62 A.D., depending on which of Paul’s imprisonments is referred to in the letters).

The first Letter to Philemon

People may dispute whether two letters were sent to Philemon by the Apostle Paul, but, if there were two as I will explain, certainly the letter now called “To Philemon” would have been the first, in the sense of the first one opened and read. The letters were brought by, presumably, Tychicus, a close friend and associate of Paul, and a runaway slave named Onesimus. The presence at the door of a former slave would have been an astonishing event. Here was a runaway slave, showing his face at the door of his former master, an almost an unbelievable situation in Roman times. What should be done with this slave? Should he be killed? Beaten? Philemon would have opened this note immediately in order to understand what was going on.

In this letter Paul was preoccupied with precisely this issue. He aimed immediately to protect Onesimus:

• [9] “I appeal to you on the basis of love”; *
• [10] “I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, who became my son while I was in chains”;
• [18] “So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me.”

Paul further attempts to protect Onesimus by personal statements of affection for him: he calls him [10] “my son”;

• [12] “him who is my very heart.”

He interposes himself in Onesimus’s place:

• [18] “If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me.”
• [19] “I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand. I will pay it back.”

And he expresses what normally might never have been put into words as a matter of courtesy and yet was the evident reality in Paul’s relationship with Philemon:

• [19] “not to mention that you owe me your very self”; and
• [8] “I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do,
• [9] yet I appeal to you on the basis of love.”

A further nuance of his claim of authority over Philemon is implied in his reference to himself as

• [9] Paul “an old man and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus.”

In fact, he seeks more than to save Onesimus’s life: He wants him to be restored to a relationship with Philemon and his household: This is the power of Paul’s play on Onesimus’s name, “Useful”:

• [11] “Formerly he was useless to you, but now he has become useful both to you and to me”;
• [13] “I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. [14] But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do will be spontaneous and not forced.”

Indeed, Paul proposes something that was unthinkable in first-century Rome:

• [15] “Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back for good, [16] no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a man and as a brother in the Lord.”

Twice he calls this slave a brother. A slave become a brother? A runaway slave, who might rightfully be scourged for running away, even killed — should he be received as a brother? Even “a dear brother”? The concept would have challenged the imagination of a slave holder in Roman times.

The letter is revolutionary in its obvious social implications. But it is revolutionary in a less evident sense, in the manner of the appeal. It was preeminently an appeal to conscience. How Philemon received Onesimus would be his own personal, private decision. This aggrieved slave owner, who held all the cards, who controlled all the rights to his slaves, is invited to receive Onesimus back, as a brother, of his own accord.

• [14] I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do will be spontaneous and not forced. [ASV "of free will"].

“Spontaneous,” the NIV translates, and “not without your consent.” Paul has deployed the language of personal appeal. He invites Philemon and his family to receive Onesimus willingly, of their own free will. He hopes they will see that Onesimus now has a new relationship to them other than as a slave. From Paul’s point of view, given the new relationship, it seems fitting that he should be received back, even as a brother.

Note what Paul did not say: He made no reference to God’s will; he offered no negative consequences.  He did not say, “God wants you to ….” Here in this modest letter is an explicit moral appeal that respects the thoughts and sensibilities of someone who in the Roman setting was duly aggrieved by a loss of valuable property. This is an appeal to Philemon’s highest, most noble instincts. What he is invited to do can’t really fulfil Paul’s purpose unless it is done voluntarily, “spontaneously.”

But the appeal is not without leverage:

• [21] “Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I ask.”

And does the next sentence add weight to Paul’s request?

• [22] “One thing more: Prepare a guest room for me, because I hope to be restored to you in answer to your prayers.”

Paul hopes to come to them — by implication he will see what Philemon has done “spontaneously” in an “unforced” manner with Paul’s request. So there were several devices by which Paul made his appeal for Onisemus: assertion of his own love for Onisemus; affirmation of Onisemus’s new, changed life; suggestion that Onisemus would be a valuable help (”useful”) to Philemon, and the intimation that Paul himself would soon come to visit. 

But there is more. The letter is actually addressed to “Philemon our dear friend and fellow worker, to Apphia our sister, to Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the church that meets in your home.” Apphia and Archippus, it is reasonable to assume, are close relatives of Philemon: Apphia, a woman’s name, is presumed to be his wife and Archippus (a male name) their son. Apphia and Archippus are also recipients of this letter: They might have a voice also in the decision about Onesimus. But further, the letter is addressed “to the church that meets in your house.” Could the whole church have a voice in the decision? This impassioned plea on the behalf of a runaway slave was in fact made to the whole church that met in Philemon’s house. It was not merely that Paul wanted Philemon and his family to take Onesimus back but for the whole church to take him back, and “as a brother.”

That the letter to Philemon was preserved suggests how it was received. Philemon probably would have destroyed it if he had been offended by the letter. Indeed, recognizing the Christian context of this social situation, if Philemon had refused to accept this repentant slave, what could he claim from God? Could Philemon claim the mercy of God if he had refused to forgive Onesimus? Jesus’s story of the unmerciful servant surely was well known in this community:

• [Mt 18:33]“I canceled that debt of yours because you begged me to. Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?”

The nacent community of believers kept this letter and eventually, when the canon was agreed upon, included it in the list of canonical works — evidence that like the other works of the apostles it was cherished, for what it revealed about Paul and about the entailments of following Christ.

Of course the letter has social implications of great importance, but it also has a theological relevance: the analog between the way Paul defended a runaway slave to an aggrieved slave owner and the theological message about the way Christ defends wayward sinners before an aggrieved Holy One. Philemon himself would have grasped it. Certainly the church fathers did not miss it. A Christian who had taken Christ’s death as an atoning sacrifice for his own failures before God would have seen it: Christ, the perfect sacrificial lamb, appeals for the unworthy,

• “If they have done you any wrong or owe you anything, charge it to me. I will repay.”

And what would have come of Onesimus? The letter of course tells us nothing of what happened next. But there are clues: One, of course, is the fact that the letter survived: its very existence suggests that Philemon and his family and his church received Onesimus. Even as a brother? Another clue: someone named Onesimus became a bishop in the church sometime later: Could that person have been the runaway slave?

This is a revolutionary document in its suggestion that a slave might be “a brother,” a full member in the Christian community, even a bishop. When Jesus was apprehended on the night of his betrayal he said to the crowd:

• [Mt 26:55]“Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? [NIV; the RSV says, "Have you come out against a robber?"]

Did Jesus lead a rebellion? No. A revolution? Yes, certainly. Indeed, revolution was what the expedition against him was all about. The high priest and elders knew that Jesus’s popularity and teaching threatened the whole system, ultimately their eminence, their authority. According to Mark (15:10) Pilate knew that envy motivated their extreme measures against Jesus; their eminence was at risk. Somehow Jesus stood for a different kind of world, one that would undermine the conventions of the day, the customs that endowed the priests and elders with presige and power.

• “My kingdom is not of this world, else my servants would fight,”

Jesus said.  Here was another kingdom, another world, with other conventions, other customs.

How different they were from the conventions of the world is demonstrated in this note to Philemon. This text displays a perspective on value, on humanity, on individual rights that radically departs from the conventions of the Roman world. But the letter is not rebellious; it does not challenge the social order of slavery (As Foucault said, rebellions often reproduce the very oppressions they originally seek to escape from). This letter to Philemon is nevertheless revolutionary. It presents a social order of a different sort altogether, based on different principles, different assumptions. True, none of them is fully articulated in this letter; they must be surmised and discovered in the application. What is the wellspring of such a letter, of such a revolutionary perspective? On this matter, the second letter is helpful, the one addressed to the church in Philemon’s house.

The second letter to Philemon

The source of this revolutionary perspective is of course the influence of Jesus. This in fact is one of the points Paul takes pains to explain in the other letter to Philemon. What is implicit in the first letter is explicated in the second. The connection between these two letters, therefore, must be established before we can connect the exposition in the second letter to the first.

We normally call the second letter by another name: we refer to it as the letter to the church at Colosse and we normally read it as if it had no connection to the letter to Philemon. Here, to stress the moral implications of both letters, I want to note their connection and examine them together.

The evidence for the connection between these two letters is the lists of people mentioned in both letters. The chart below cites the individuals mentioned, noting where they are at the time of writing: Those with Paul, some of whom have given Paul information on the Colossian church; those in the target community; and those arriving with the two letters. You will notice that the personal names in the two letters match almost perfectly.

Individuals with Paul

Individuals in the target community

Individuals arriving with the letters

The same people are with Paul: Epaphras, Aristarchus, Mark, Jesus called Justice, Luke, Demas. Only the name "Jesus called Justice" does not reoccur in the letter to Philemon. In both letters Archippus is listed, and in both letters he appears to have a similar role:

• [Colossians] “the work you have received in the Lord”;
• [Philemon] “our fellow soldier.”

Onesimus appears in both letters:

• [Col] “one of yourselves”,
• [Phile] a runaway slave.

Tychicus is the other person arriving, mentioned in Colossians but not in Philemon; he would have been the bearer of both letters. Out of the twelve names mentioned in the two books, ten of them overlap. Moreover, each of those mentioned is in the same place and in the same condition [in or out of prison]. In Colossians Paul, Aristarchus, Epaphras, Mark, Luke, and Demas may have all been in prison, although only the first two are specifically so mentioned; in Philemon Ephaphras is mentioned as a prisoner.The evidence is that the church that met in Philemon’s house (vs. 2) was the church at Colosse. So the letter to the Colossians can be read in the context of the note to Philemon. And the letter to Philemon can be read in the context of the letter to Colosse. In each there is the subtext of the other.

The letter to the Colossian church had many specific teachings that would have, in the minds of Philemon and his household, borne upon the problem of Onesimus. So there were many more entailments in the appeal of Paul than those stated specifically in the note to Philemon: there were all the issues implied in the teachings directed to the whole church community at Colosse.

This viewpoint opens up a whole range of new possibilities for thinking about the social implications of Paul’s appeal to Philemon. For Colossians is an elaborate, extended discourse on the fundamental concepts of the faith, beginning with very abstract ideas and moving toward explicit directives and suggestions on how the members of the Christian community — specifically that church communisty — should relate to each other, given their respective positions in a Christian society. In this other letter we see a whole range of implications of the gospel that bear upon issues raised in the note to Philemon, implications that were far reaching and directly relevant on Philemon’s concerns about Onesimus. He would have read not only the letter addressed to him but also the letter addressed to the church that met in his house; and moreover, as the letter was read aloud to the congregation, everyone would have recognized the signifiance of its contents for the problem of a returned, runaway slave. This was public business.

And what a letter it is. Normally we would examine such a letter as it were written to be read from beginning to end, but the first letter to Philemon has drected us to a specific situation and a question: What were the social implications of the gospel when it comes to dealing with a runaway repentant slave?

A striking feature of the second letter to Philemon is the conceptual frame of reference established in the early parts of the letter. That frame of reference then sets the context for the directives on how people in the church should relate to each other. It provides the grounds on which to understand the practical significance of their new faith. Paul’s first letter to Philemon seeks to protect Onesimous. His second letter, specifically to the church that meets in Philemon’s house, aims to correct misunderstandings generally about what constitutes apopropriate Christian living. It is not the rituals that matter, Paul says here; it is the life of faith:

• “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. . . . Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.”

The appeal for Onesimus still resonates in the background, even here. But it becomes even more relevant in the specific directives that Paul adduces from the broad framework that he develops in the early chapters.

• [3:1]“Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.

The practical demands on the life of the believer are therefore to

• “Put to death, . . . whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry.”

What that means in practice is that the social statuses recognized in the world are nul and void. This a new and heavenly-based social order :

• [3:11]“Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.”

Social categories defined in worldly contexts are of no account in this society; they are to be a new people, living by another standard. Here there are other rules, other obligations, other rights:

• [3:12]“Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.” 13 Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. 14 And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity. . . . And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.

Having formulated the nature of relations within the Christian community Paul then directly addresses particular ways that this new moral system should affect the behavior of believers in a fallen world, where worldly social categories are recognized.

• [22]“Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men, 24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. 25 Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong, and there is no favoritism.”

Notice how much emphasis is given to the obligation of slaves; nowhere else does Pauls so explicitly develop his concept of the obligation of slaves. Onisemous, and indeed the whole church, could not have missed the specific bearing of this statement on his condition. But it is not as if “masters” are given a bye:

• [4:1]“Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.”

The second letter constructs the frame of reference within which, for the Christian, all of life is to be lived: voluntarily, spontaneously, willingly, eagerly, joyfully. And so it frames the appeal for Onisemous made in the first letter.

There is something more here that may be easily overlooked, and its source is Jesus himself. The critical feature of the influence of Jesus was the attempt to influence through education, through argumentation, without coercion. Jesus invited people to repent, believe, receive with joy the gift of God. Roger Williams, founder of Rhode Island and author of the first public covenant that instituted a right of conscience (arguing that authentic faith could never be coerced), insisted that authentic Christianity has to be (to use Paul’s term here) “spontaneous,” by sincere “consent.” True faith cannot be coerced. True faith — authentic commitment to Christ — best prospers where it can be safely refused. A church that persecutes, Williams said, is not Christian. Roger Williams’s model comes from passages like this one: Paul’s gentle attempt to persuade but not to coerce: [14] so that any favor you do will be spontaneous and not forced.

A critical element of Paul’s relationship to Philemon as to Onesimus was respect for the conscience of the other. Roger Williams called it “soul liberty.” And it comes from Jesus himself in that his appeal for an authentic response to the mercies of God could not be, must not be, coerced. In Christ’s economy the critical response has to be genuine positive acceptance in the “heart,” in the “soul.” When that takes place Paul says there will be a “renewing of the Holy Spirit.” The place where God meets the individual is in the heart, one’s heart of hearts. Jesus says, “I stand at the door and knock. If anyone opens the door [voluntarily, authentically] I will come in to him and dine with him.” (Rev 3:20)

The appeal to conscience, the invitation to forgive a repentant and compliant slave but to receive him as a brother, such ideas had profound implications for the church community, for the way they should treat each other, and the way they could honor the gifts among them. We have heard that eventually in the province of Asia (of which Colosse was a part) there would be a Bishop of the church named Onesimus. Could this have been the runaway slave?

Many scholars have noted that Paul did not challenge the practice of slavery in the Roman empire. I think they missed one of the most exciting features of these letters.